A federal judge has delivered a significant legal victory by striking down President Trump's executive order that targeted the prominent law firm Susman Godfrey. This ruling is part of a broader series of legal triumphs for law firms that have successfully challenged Trump's punitive measures against the legal profession.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a ruling that marks the fourth time a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump's executive orders aimed at punishing elite law firms. Judge AliKhan declared that the executive order against Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional “from beginning to end.” In her decision, she stated, “Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full.” She emphasized that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.
In response to the ruling, Susman Godfrey released a statement applauding the court's decision, calling it a “resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.” The firm reiterated its commitment to upholding the rule of law and defending the rights of clients, regardless of their political affiliations.
This ruling represents a significant rebuke of Trump's unprecedented series of executive orders issued since February, which aimed to punish law firms for representing clients or causes that Trump opposes. These executive orders have included punitive measures such as suspending security clearances for attorneys, restricting access to government buildings, and terminating government contracts with affected law firms.
Four major law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—have taken individual legal action to block Trump's orders. They argue that these executive directives are unconstitutional and pose a threat to the integrity of the legal profession. Judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have sided with the law firms, declaring Trump's actions unconstitutional and permanently halting their enforcement.
In their judicial opinions, judges have highlighted that Trump's executive orders attack the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights of law firms, constituting a broader assault on the American legal system. Judge Richard Leon, appointed by former President George W. Bush, noted that the independence of the judiciary and the legal bar is essential to the American justice system. He asserted, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases.”
Similarly, Judge Beryll Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, pointed out that no prior president has ever targeted law firms with executive orders as Trump has done, drawing a parallel to Shakespeare's phrase, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”
Despite these legal setbacks, Trump has managed to secure agreements with at least nine major law firms, allowing some of his executive orders to be lifted. In exchange, these firms have committed to providing hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono legal work on issues aligned with both their interests and the president's agenda. However, legal experts like Timothy Zick, a professor at William and Mary Law School, question the legality of these arrangements.
Zick remarked, “The Trump administration doesn’t appear to care whether the executive orders against the law firms are constitutional. Many firms will capitulate, and if judges invalidate the orders, the administration will just blame 'radical' judges for interfering with the president's agenda.” Nevertheless, recent court rulings have underscored the strength of the law firms' cases against these executive orders.
The broader implications of these legal battles might also affect how law firms are perceived in the future. Firms that have engaged in litigation may be viewed as defenders of not only their own interests but also of the legal profession and the rule of law. In contrast, those that chose to settle may face scrutiny regarding their commitment to legal principles.
